Thursday, 14 May 2015

Home Secretary surgically dissected on Today Programme over new extremism disruption orders

This week Prime Minister David Cameron unveiled
plans for a new counter-terrorism bill he intends to include in the Queen’s
speech on 27 May.

The bill will include provision for extremism disruption
orders giving the police powers to apply to the high court to limit the
‘harmful activities’ of an ‘extremist’ individual.

The orders were proposed during the last parliament in
March, but were largely vetoed by the Liberal Democrats on the grounds of free
speech. They were subsequently revived in the Conservative manifesto.

The measures would include a ban on broadcasting and a
requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the
web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning
orders for extremist organisations which seek to ‘undermine democracy’ or use
hate speech in public places.

There would also be new powers to close premises where
extremists seek to influence others.

Cameron told the National Security Council on Wednesday:

‘For too long, we have
been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey
the law, we will leave you alone… This government will conclusively turn the
page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one
nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain
values. “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law.
Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality.”’

But just how far would these new orders extend?

Home Secretary Theresa May (pictured) appeared on Radio
Four’s ‘Today programme’ (listen here) to explain it to presenter
John Humphrys.

What followed was a masterclass in broadcast interviewing
with Humphrys surgically dissecting May and brutally exposing the lack of
clarity behind the new proposals.

The Home Secretary started by explaining that the new bill
would include ‘banning orders for groups and disruption orders for individuals’ who
were ‘trying to promote hatred and
intolerance’ which ‘undermines our
British values’.

‘But isn’t freedom of speech, an essential prerequisite of
a tolerant and decent society’, asked Humphrys.

May answered that the ‘extremism’ the government was trying to prevent
was that which ‘promotes(s) hatred’, which seeks ‘to divide our society’ and
‘undermine the very values that make us… a great pluralistic society’

But what if ‘a group of people put together a meeting at which they
expressed views about homosexuality that you or I might, perhaps, find
repugnant. Would they be dividing society?’, said Humphrys.

May evaded the question so Humphrys asked, ‘At what point does it
qualify for being banned?’

May again refused to define what she meant by ‘extremism’ but said
that the aim was ‘to ensure that we can promote British values, the values that
unite us as a society’.

Humphrys replied that ‘promoting British values’ was a woolly phrase
and asked if May was intending to send people who refused to do it to jail. He
pressed her again and again to define ‘extremism ‘ and ‘British values’ until
she eventually offered a definition.

Apparently British values are ‘values like democracy, a belief in
democracy, a belief in the rule of law, a belief in tolerance for other people,
equality, and acceptance of other peoples’ faiths and religions.’

Which of course begs a whole host of questions: What is democracy?
What law are we talking about? What should be tolerated and what shouldn’t be?
What does equality entail? What does accepting another person’ faith actually
mean?

These questions are crucial as the bottom line is that people who
don’t promote what May calls ‘British values’ could be banned from
broadcasting, required to submit their publications to the police, and have
their organisation shut down and their premises closed.

‘The details are still
not clear and won't get much clearer until the Queen's Speech – or probably
afterwards. But we do know three things: 1) that the definition of an extremist
is being expanded 2) that the process for how someone is officially designated
as an extremist is shrouded in mystery, and 3) that the list of restrictions
which applies to them once they have been designated an extremist is now
extremely broad and intrusive.’

This appears to be a case where the price of freedom will be
eternal vigilance. Every group whose views are judged to run counter to these
poorly defined ‘British values’ could be in danger and would be strongly advised
to subject the proposals, when they eventually appear, to the utmost scrutiny.

We may think that as Christian doctors we would immune from this kind of scrutiny but terms like 'tolerance', 'equality' and 'acceptance of other people's faith' are so elastic that they could be interpreted in such a way that perfectly normal Christian behaviour could be criminalised.

Is it being 'intolerant' not to participate in abortion? Is refusing to refer for a sex change procedure or IVF for unmarried couples (heterosexual or homosexual) showing a lack of respect for equality? Is sharing one's faith with a Muslim colleague or patient displaying a 'lack of acceptance of other people's faith'?

We have no way of knowing and how these principles are interpreted by officials (or even police) on the ground may be very much a lottery and may go far beyond what might have been intended by legislators.

Ironically the Home Secretary’s interview was followed
immediately by an interview with author AN Wilson (listen from 2h 24m here) , author of ‘Dante in
Love’, marking the 750th anniversary of the birth of Italian poet Dante
Alighieri.

Dante’s most famous work, the Divine Comedy – often
described as one of the greatest ever written – is more than just the story of
his journey through Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. It is a portrait of medieval
society and a profound study of human psychology.

‘Dante had firm views about what our values are’, said
Wilson. ‘He said they were based on the Christian religion and Roman law which
runs through the whole of European Society and that’s what defines Europe.’

He went on to relate how Primo Levi , after been taken to
Auschwitz by the Nazis, would recite to himself daily Ulysses speech in Dante’s
divine comedy:

‘Consider your roots, where
are you coming from, we are not just brute beasts, we are striving after knowledge
and virtue’.

‘And these things’, Wilson concluded ‘are from Roman Law and
Christianity’.

Quite.

Sadly the Home Secretary seems to have forgotten, or perhaps
never to have known, what the real historic roots of British values actually
are.

Post a Comment

Contact the author

Search this Blog

Kiwi, Christian and Medical

This blog deals mainly with matters at the interface of Christianity and Medicine. But I do also diverge into other subjects - especially New Zealand, rugby, economics, developing world, politics and topics of general Christian and/or medical interest. The opinions expressed here are mine and may not necessarily reflect the views of my employer or anyone else associated with me.

About Me

I am CEO of Christian Medical Fellowship, a UK-based organisation with 4,500 UK doctors and 1,000 medical students as members. The opinions expressed here however are mine, and may not necessarily reflect the views of CMF or anyone else associated with me.